In any online political discussion, an expression of overall partisan agreement, but specific disagreement with the tone or extent of a particular hyperbolic critique of the opposing political party, will inevitably result in accusations that the person so expressing is a troll, an appeaser, or a member of that opposing political party.
Because I am congenitally incapable of being controversial or inflammatory, not to mention a smartass, I will explain this law by imagining conversations in the conservative wingnutosphere. This law applies to people of all political persuasions, but it appears most often amongst those whose political opinions are most partisan and passionate.
In the Autumn of 1993, while driving from Los Angeles to Phoenix, I accidentally stumbled upon a wingnut radio call-in show, and heard something like this:
Janet Reno should be tried for treason and shot for having killed those kids in Waco! If she isn't, these fascists will come after the rest of us, and kill us, too!
My imagined conversation then proceeds as follows:
First Wingnut: Oh, come on! As much as I despise President Clinton, her husband, and everyone who works for them, and as much as I agree that Reno should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for these murders, let's be realistic: this was one specific situation, and it's just not realistic to believe they're going to send people to come kill the rest of us, too! Let's at least try to be rational about this!
Second Wingnut (demonstrating Turkana's Law): Yeah, you're probably happy that those kids died, in Waco. Are you fucking insane?
Third Wingnut (also demonstrating Turkana's Law): You're probably glad she killed those kids! What are you, some friend of James Carville who was ordered to call in and troll this program?
Now, note that the First Wingnut was very clear about his disdain for the Clinton Administration, and his horror at the Waco killings. Nevertheless, the Second and Third Wingnuts jumped right past that to hysterical accusations that didn't at all reflect what the First Wingnut was actually saying. Under most circumstances, the result of this triggering of Turkana's Law is an increasingly degenerating series of accusations and invectives. If it were a blog conversation, it would also likely lead to troll-ratings.
My second example is taken from 1998, when President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 67, on Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations, in case of decapacitating attack. Our real life example comes from Freeperville (and hat tips to DH from MD and Rimjob). Use the actual Freeper link at your own discretion...
Another possibility would be to have the president himself declare a state of national emergency and enact the terms of previously instituted presidential executive orders and directives which would suspend the Constitution during the emergency. Once enacted, even Congress could not stop such an act by the president. Congress has foolishly permitted presidents to abuse the powers of executive orders time and time again. Presidents have taken advantage of this and Clinton has granted himself more and more power through executive orders that have gone unchallenged by Congress. In fact, as I have called various members of Congress about specific executive orders their response has always been that they have not known anything about them.
Now, here's my imagined discussion:
First Wingnut: Oh, come on! Aren't we getting just a little tinfoily here? Such directives about continuing power are nothing new! Presidents have been making them for decades, to ensure our government is not decapitated by an enemy attack!
As much as I hate President Clinton, and her husband, shouldn't we keep our eyes on their real crimes, abuses, and haircuts, rather than on invented conspiracy theories?
Second Wingnut: What? So, you think it's okay for him to seize power and rule as a dictator? I, for one, intend to fight for my freedom!
Third Wingnut: Yeah, First Wingnut probably thinks fascism is fun!
Fourth Wingnut: Hillary sucks!
Second Wingnut: First Wingnut is probably some friend of James Carville, who was sent here to pacify us into complaisancy!
Fourth Wingnut: Hillary sucks!
Third Wingnut: Yes, she does, but that's not what we're talking about. Clinton just imposed the Nuremburg Laws!
Fourth Wingnut: Hillary sucks!
Third Wingnut: Okay, now I'm confused- are we back in real time on Daily Kos or are we still in imagined Freeperville?
Fourth Wingnut: When it comes to Hillary bashing- what's the difference?
Sorry about that hijack. When you begin imagining conversations in Freeperville, you never know what's going to happen!
Back to Turkana's Law: did you notice that the First Wingnut was clear about its hatred of the Clintons and its belief that they were criminals, but simply wanted to refocus debate on what it considered real crimes? Of course, in Freeperville, nothing is quite connected to the Real World, but you get my point: the First Wingnut was clearly an ally of the others, but disagreed with what it considered to be an hysterical overreaction to the Clinton Directive. For that, it was accused of being a political enemy.
A couple of final points:
- Unlike Godwin's Law, which is a simple statement about the inevitable, and does not necessarily make a value judgement on the rectitude of its manifestations, Turkana's Law does make an explicit value judgement on its manifestations. By definition, Turkana's Law reflects misreadings, misunderstandings, and/or just plain asshattedness on the parts of those who demonstrate it.
- There are such things as real trolls; but Turkana's Law applies only when the ostensibly offending, supposedly appeasing statement contains within itself language clearly demonstrating that the person making the statement is, in fact, in overall political agreement with those whose hyperbolic statements she or he is criticizing.
So, bookmark this diary! When Turkana's Law is demonstrated or triggered, call people on it! This will save much time and energy by those frustrated by its frequent manifestations! Rather than arguing, defending, and watching threads spin out of control as personal attacks escalate into flame wars and responsive troll-ratings, simply invoke Turkana's Law, and walk away! When you do, you'll feel better, in the morning! In fact, I will now propose the First Corollary to Turkana's Law:
When Turkana's Law is manifested, and not called, flame wars and troll-ratings will result.
There you have them: Turkana's Law and the First Corollary to Turkana's Law! Use them in good health!
UPDATE: Semi-colon added at jhritz's request!